On Mon, 2013-02-11 at 18:14 +0000, sebb wrote: > On 11 February 2013 13:05, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-02-11 at 12:24 +0000, sebb wrote: > >> The IPv6 regexes use non-capturing groups - i.e. (?:pattern) - whereas > >> the IPV4 pattern uses capturing groups - i.e. (pattern). > >> > >> Just wondering why they don't all use non-capturing groups, given that > >> the patterns are only used in boolean matches() methods? > >> > > > > No reason. Just me being sloppy. > > > >> If it more efficient to use non-capturing groups, perhaps they should > >> be use throughout? > >> > >> If efficiency is not a concern, then the IPv6 patterns would be easier > >> to read if they used non-capturing groups, as that would mean the > >> colon would only appear as itself rather than sometimes as itself and > >> sometimes as part of (?:pattern). In some cases the pattern begins > >> with : which looks odd. > >> > > > > I think we should strive for simplicity over efficiency here. These > > regular expressions are already too complex for mere mortals. Anything > > that would make them more readable would be a good thing. > > In which case, would you be OK if I extracted the common sections out? >
Absolutely. Why should I object? Oleg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
